Like I said in the title of the thread, "Blatant Propaganda, anyone?"
How much of a "strength" is dishonesty? Guess we'll be finding out once again.
This does not seem to apply to the actual validity of the theory of evolution or the contention that the God did creation in 6 days 6000 years ago.
It appears from this article that the TFN group conducted a poorly, perhaps even dishonestly, constructed poll. If we were to believe that the honesty of some who adhere to a belief actually had anything to do with the validity of that belief, then 6-days-6000-years-ago-creation belief would have been completely invalidated by the repeated dishonesty of Duane Gish.
Right. According to you and talkdeceptions....
I shouldn't waste too much time responding. Slander is against current rules, and there's a chance someone will complain. I see no reason why your post and any responses shouldn't be deleted.
The article has a Gallop poll result:
Gallup polls routinely show that only a small minority (typically less than 15%) of Americans actually believe, even after decades of nearly exclusive evolutionary instruction, that a purely naturalistic materialistic evolution is capable of explaining life.
While the poll information is probably correct, this doesn't really say that 85% of the country believes the theory of evolution to be incorrect.
Whence the suggestion that it does?
Many believe that God used evolution and even guided it. The article implies that this means most people don't accept evolution.
You quote more than once from the article, yet you do not quote any portion where they make the alleged implication. Is the mere existence of the article enough?
Also, your interpretation of the poll data presupposes
unquestioning allegiance is a requisite of acceptance, when it comes to evolutionism. I don't care to argue against this just now.
Here's a quote from the article that I thought to be rather amusing:
That poll goes on to examine the question of "When Darwin's theory of evolution is taught in school, students should also be able to learn about scientific evidence that points to an intelligent design of life." 78% agreed with the statement, either strongly (53%) or somewhat (25%). Only 13% disagreed, either strongly (8%) or somewhat (5%).
And that scientific evidence would be.....?
Invisible to those who refuse to see. What else is new?
Look Ma - no eyes!
But if this evidence didn't exist, how does one explain the fanatical opposition to provisions for allowing any such evidence to be presented? Even language which simply says "strengths and weaknesses of scientific theories should be presented" brings out the hate, lies, and threats.
Perhaps if the majority of the population knew that the intelligent design movement was not conducting any scientific research then they might change their opinion.
So now you're saying science is determined by the actions of supporters? How quickly you flip-flop back and forth.
Or was that just your idea of an excuse to slander ID? Or maybe it's your idea of an excuse to employ the term 'science' as an euphemism for atheism - hard to say.
While their article in February 21 2006 states:
Hundreds of Doctoral Scientists Question Evolution Dogma: The number of scientists who publicly question Darwinism and encourage critical thinking on the issue has now topped 500. Given that these fully credentialed PhD scientists risk retributions at work for going public against the established dogma, this is particularly newsworthy.
Yet there are no stories from Feb 2006 to the present showing any of those scientists being persecuted.
Ah, so persecution only exists if it's reported? With such reasoning we might have long ago proclaimed "racism is dead", one supposes.
I certainly don't take your word on the matter, but I'm not going to hunt down stories for a post that may be deleted any time, naturally.
Michael Behe even testified in the Dover case and he still has a job.
So only if they're able to disqualify a man from all employment could there be persecution? What's next, only termination of life counts? Failure or partial success on the part of the cowards does not erase what they do, or what they attempt.
Seems like the persecution is very subtle.
Seems like selective blindness works for just about anything. While some may marvel at the effectiveness of this "tool", I do not.
